Q: “What is the Definition of Obstinate, Stupid and Irrational?”
By Mitch Berg
A: “When someone you disagree with has an experience, and still draws different conclusions than yours”.
10 Responses to “Q: “What is the Definition of Obstinate, Stupid and Irrational?””
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Obviously we always take our preconceptions into every situation, but to me it seems like Katherine is the more reality grounded here. Did she go to Scotland with opinions about how a euro-socialist state would look? I am sure she did, but it sounds like this is closer to someone saying, “I bet it’s raining out” and going out and getting soaked to the skin. When evidence supports your preconceptions then your preconceptions are probably right.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Mitch, you asked, a while back, for logical refutation of Kersten, claiming it has never been done.
That was of course, hyperbole, it had been done 100 times if done once, and is done here again. Kersten has the observational skills of a mole. If you put a torch in her face, she’d feel the heat, but couldn’t, for the life of her, see the light.
This columnist made a very clear statement, if you don’t like his statement (her statement?) – tough- but he IS allowed to disagree with Kersten’s conclusions without being labeled obstinate or stupid – or, if it was your intent to mock his disgreement – he is allowed to do so every bit as much as you are allowed to draw different conclusions than others (and so very, very often do). I wonder if you constrain your conduct in the same way you are pithily looking to constrain this blog’s conclusion, namely, to simply backhand it, saying, ‘Oh, just because you don’t agree with her conclusion, she’s stupid, eh? – see, this is just a case of two opinions’ when in fact he didn’t say that. Contrastingly, you frequently call Nick Coleman stupid for concluding something you didn’t. This isn’t just a case of two opinions, Kersten’s a dolt. She doesn’t get that flat taxes based on a percentage can have entirely unintended consequences, that the Europeans are JUST FINE with having a high gas tax, which they use to pay for public transit, roads, infrastructure, you know, all the things that we (you) eschew – and how this columnist choses to ‘fisk’ Kersten may not be to YOUR preference, but it IS entirely consistent with your past conduct.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“Kersten has the observational skills of a mole. If you put a torch in her face, she’d feel the heat, but couldn’t, for the life of her, see the light.”
This is, of course, hyberpole… but Peev doesn’t see it.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Trollish,
Mitch, you asked, a while back, for logical refutation of Kersten, claiming it has never been done.
And you proceed not to do it again!
That was of course, hyperbole, it had been done 100 times if done once, and is done here again.
Fine. Show me any 3-4 of those “100 times”.
Buncombe. Quimby merely cocks his eyebrows at some of her statements. That’s “heckling”, not argument. Now, I don’t suspect Charlie intended any more; for you to take more from it is…
…well, typical.
Kersten has the observational skills of a mole. If you put a torch in her face, she’d feel the heat, but couldn’t, for the life of her, see the light.
Let me try to understand; would your above sentence, by your count, be the “101st logical refutation?” Just curious.
This columnist made a very clear statement, if you don’t like his statement (her statement?) – tough- but he IS allowed to disagree with Kersten’s conclusions without being labeled obstinate or stupid – or, if it was your intent to mock his disgreement – he is allowed to do so every bit as much as you are allowed to draw different conclusions than others (and so very, very often do).
Duh.
I wonder if you constrain your conduct in the same way you are pithily looking to constrain this blog’s conclusion, namely, to simply backhand it, saying, ‘Oh, just because you don’t agree with her conclusion, she’s stupid, eh? – see, this is just a case of two opinions’ when in fact he didn’t say that.
What on earth waws that sentence supposed to mean?
Contrastingly, you frequently call Nick Coleman stupid for concluding something you didn’t.
And – this is rather important, Peev, so pay attention – I do it by showing why he’s stupid. I show facts that debunk him.
People do occasionally attack Kersten’s conclusions – on rare occasions, successfully. It happens. But the broad “Kersten is a dummy” chorus that the local lobotomized left chants whenever her name is mentioned is nothing but rote repetitive ad homina with no basis in fact.
This isn’t just a case of two opinions, Kersten’s a dolt.
Ibid.
She doesn’t get that flat taxes based on a percentage can have entirely unintended consequences, that the Europeans are JUST FINE with having a high gas tax
OK, Peev, those are policy disagreements, not signs of being a “Dolt”. Since you just blabbered on about Charlie Quimby’s right to disagree with Kersten (with which nobody argues), you’d think you could recognize the same thing…
…er, never mind.
and how this columnist choses to ‘fisk’ Kersten may not be to YOUR preference, but it IS entirely consistent with your past conduct.
And again – duh.
My quibble with Quimby is not that he disagrees with Kersten. I merely think he’s wrong.
I get to do that. Right?
At least until people like you take over and herd people like me into concentration camps? (You’ve never spoke out against concentration camps – you must support them! Bwahahahahaaha!)
May 6th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
I don’t have much time for Quimby anymore. He doesn’t think rational thoughts, he only feels emotional responses, and I’m frankly uninterested in having him feel me.
.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
You really ought to highlight all of Peev’s comments in blue. Or green. Or red (since he’s a Godless Commie).
I was going to say that you should highlight his useless comments in another color, but that amounts to coloring all of them.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
That feeling feeling is mutual, Nate, don’t worry.
The post Mitch says he disagrees with, but only heckles, is about a columnist who spends a week in a country and doesn’t manage to bring back anything new. It suggests a couple places where she might’ve had to grapple with her preconceptions and declined. And it points out how the gas tax works in Scotland (which Kersten didn’t bother explain to her readers).
I’ll try to be less emotional in the future.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Now, Charlie, I don’t claim to do anything but heckle – mildly, at that – with my post.
Just so we’re clear.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Badda,
Mitch’s entire blog, by your standard, is hyperbole, and yes, I certainly see that analogy, where unconstructive, is hyperbole by another name.
Contrastingly, where you might find all of my comments useless, since yours amount to nothing more than sniping, and you offer virtually no substance EVER, what does that precisely make you? A sniper at uselessness – which is pretty pathetic.
Mitch- you attempted to claim that finding someone’s observations as less than insightful is nothing more than a difference of opinion. Charlie clearly pionted out Kersten’s a dolt – countering your past claims. It’s more than a mere difference of opinion. More accurately, your complaints amounted to self-indicting observation, as you routinely do PRECISELY what you accuse Charlie of.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Peev,
I’ll point out yet again you have yet to actually show (with proof perhaps, but I bet you don’t) how I’m an extremist.
If I offer nothing but sniping, then it must be pretty gaulling to hear where I got it from. 😆